Title IX Training: Requirements and Best Practices

January is often a natural pause point for Title IX coordinators and campus leaders in higher education—a moment to reflect on the prior year and consider what’s ahead. Training is one of the most visible and scrutinized components of a Title IX program. It is also one of the hardest to manage consistently across roles and over time, particularly when day-to-day case work takes priority.

Federal Title IX regulations establish clear subject-matter training requirements for certain Title IX professionals. At the same time, institutions retain significant discretion in how training is delivered, refreshed, and documented. Understanding that balance is essential to building a strong, defensible Title IX program.

What Training Is Required Under Title IX Regulations?

Federal Title IX regulations require institutions to provide training for individuals who play formal roles in the Title IX process. Specifically, training is required for:

• Title IX Coordinators
• Deputy Title IX Coordinators
• Investigators
• Decision-makers
• Appellate Decision-makers
• Informal Resolution Facilitators

These individuals must receive training that covers, at a minimum:

• The definition of sexual harassment
• The scope of the institution’s education program or activity
• How to conduct investigations and grievance processes, including hearings, appeals, and informal resolution processes, as applicable
• How to serve impartially, including by avoiding conflicts of interest and bias

The regulations also include role-specific requirements:

• Decision-makers must be trained on:
  • Any technology used at live hearings
  • Rules of relevance, including when questions or evidence about a complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior are not permitted
• Investigators must be trained on:
  • Issues of relevance
  • How to prepare an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence

Establishing Your Institution’s Training Protocols

While federal Title IX regulations define who must be trained and what topics must be covered, they do not prescribe how institutions should structure training over time. Establishing clear, defensible training protocols requires consideration of additional factors beyond the federal baseline.

This may include questions such as:

• How often should training occur?
• How many hours of training are appropriate for each role?
• Which roles beyond those named in the regulations should receive training (for example, advisors or key campus partners)?
• What additional training topics would strengthen the institution’s approach, such as prevention education, bystander intervention, or trauma-informed practices?
• How will training be documented, tracked, and maintained over time?

Institutions should also account for applicable state law requirements when establishing training protocols. State laws may impose training or education obligations related to sexual misconduct response or prevention that extend beyond federal Title IX regulations, including requirements for student-facing training. Because these obligations vary and may change, institutions should regularly review applicable statutes, regulations, or guidance as part of their training planning process.

Taken together, these considerations shape how an institution’s Title IX program operates in practice—and how its training decisions may be evaluated by parties, counsel, and external reviewers.

Best Practice: Annual Training for Title IX Teams

Based on our experience supporting institutions in Title IX matters, we recommend annual training, at a minimum, for all members of the Title IX team.

This typically includes:

• Title IX Coordinators
• Deputy Title IX Coordinators
• Investigators
• Decision-makers
• Appellate Decision-makers
• Informal Resolution Facilitators
• Advisors
• Intake staff and other key contributors to the Title IX process

Annual training supports consistency across roles, helps teams stay aligned with evolving regulations and guidance, and demonstrates an ongoing commitment to fairness and procedural integrity.

Additionally, both employee and student-facing training—when thoughtfully designed—can reinforce institutional expectations around reporting, support, and shared responsibility.

Please Note: The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. We recommend seeking independent legal advice concerning the issues presented in evaluating a particular incident.